Hinkle-Washington Joint Venture

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 1999

No. 75031114 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 1999)

Paper No. 16
GDH/gdh
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Hinkle-Washington Joint Venture
________
Serial No. 75/031,114
_______
Douglas W. Sprinkle of Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Patmore,
Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. for Hinkle-Washington Joint Venture.
Anne T. Madden, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Thomas Shaw, Acting Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Hanak and Hohein, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hohein, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Hinkle-Washington Joint Venture has filed an
application to register the term "DRIVER-ID" for "anti-theft
alarms for vehicles".1
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the basis
that, when used in connection with applicant's goods, the term
"DRIVER-ID" is merely descriptive of them.

1 Ser. No. 75/031,114, filed on December 11, 1995, which alleges a bona
fide intention to use the term.
Ser. No. 75/031,114
2
Applicant has appealed. Briefs have been filed, but an
oral hearing was not held.2 We affirm the refusal to register.
Applicant, in response to the Examining Attorney’s
request for information concerning, in particular, how
applicant’s "alarms function and if an identification code is
keyed into the vehicle to gain entry or to start the engine,"
submitted the following "brief description of the DRIVER-ID
system" along with copies of "the first pages of patents granted
on this system" to Messrs. Hinkle and Washington (emphasis
added):
The DRIVER-ID system identifies the
individual who is attempting to operate a
vehicle via a personal identification code,
fingerprint, retina scan, bracelet or the
like. The system prevents any unauthorized
user from using the vehicle. For example, if
a driver has a restricted license and is not
permitted to operate a vehicle between
certain hours, the DRIVER-ID system prevents
that person from operating a vehicle to which
the system has been added.
The abstract of the patent granted to Mr. Washington, which
covers a "VEHICLE SECURITY SYSTEM USING DRIVER’S LICENSE, TIME OF
DAY AND PASSIVE TAG," reveals with respect to various versions of
applicant’s goods, including those incorporating the "VEHICLE
OPERATION INHIBITOR CONTROL APPARATUS" disclosed in the abstract
of the patent issued to Mr. Hinkel,3 that (emphasis added):

2 Although an oral hearing was requested by applicant and scheduled by
the Board, applicant subsequently submitted a waiver of the oral
hearing.
3 Such apparatus, as stated therein, essentially operates as follows:
A band housing a transmitter is non-removably mounted
about a portion of the body of a person who is not
authorized to operate a motor vehicle. A receiver is
Ser. No. 75/031,114
3
A system is provided for use with an
automotive vehicle having a normally disabled
ignition system. Each driver license is
encoded with indicia, such as a magnetic
strip, indicative of the identity of the
driver. This driver’s license is inserted
into a reader container in the vehicle which
then generates an identification signal
representative of the identity of the
driver’s license. A microprocessor then
compares the identification signal from the
driver’s license with pre-recorded computer
memory representative of the authorized
driver(s) for the vehicle. When the driver’s
license identification signal matches the
stored data in memory, the microprocessor
generates an output signal which enables the
vehicle ignition system. .... In ... a ...
modification, the system, includes a radio
receiver which receives a radio signal from a
transmitter on an ankle bracelet worn by a
person with a restricted driver’s license.
Once the receiver detects the radio signal
from the bracelet, a microprocessor compares
the current time with a time schedule
containing time periods during which
operation of the vehicle by the selective
person is unauthorized. In the event that
operation of the vehicle is unauthorized, the
microprocessor generates a disabled signal
which disables operation of the vehicle.
While acknowledging in its main brief that, in light of
the above, its goods "are a novel ignition enabling or disabling
device for automobiles which works by matching features of a
particular operator’s driver’s license with information
previously programmed into the device" and by which "the vehicle
is enabled of disabled, depending upon whether the driver’s
license signal matches or does not match the stored data,"

mounted in the vehicle in close proximity to the vehicle
steering wheel to detect signals from the transmitter when
the person wearing the band is situated in proximity with
the steering wheel. Upon receiving a signal from the
transmitter, the receiver generates an output signal to the
electric circuit control elements which inhibit the
operation of the vehicle. ....
Ser. No. 75/031,114
4
applicant maintains that the term "DRIVER-ID" only "suggests, at
most, a feature of the goods". Specifically, applicant insists
that such term immediately conveys only an indirect or vague
aspect of its anti-theft alarms for vehicles inasmuch as its
goods, "[r]ather than ’identifying drivers at all," simply
"correlate encoded information to enable the ignition to run or
not, depending on the match of the information."
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, contends in
her brief that:
Applicant’s mark, DRIVER-ID, immediately
conveys to the average prospective purchaser
of applicant’s goods the primary function of
the goods. This term immediately tells the
function of the applicant’s goods which is to
identify authorized drivers of vehicles armed
with this system.
Relying, among other things, upon definitions of record in which
"driver" is defined in Webster’s II New Riverside University
Dictionary (1984) as "[o]ne that drives" and "ID" is listed in
the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 1993) as
signifying "a means of identification, as a card or bracelet
containing official or approved identification information," the
Examining Attorney argues that:
In the instant case, the terms
comprising the applicant’s mark are ordinary
English words which are in common usage as
evidenced by the dictionary definitions of
record. The combination of the descriptive
terms, DRIVER-ID, when considered in relation
to the goods, leaves nothing for speculation
or conjecture. It does not create a new and
different commercial impression. The
descriptive aspect of the mark is not lost in
its combined form.

Ser. No. 75/031,114
5
It is well settled that a term is considered to be
merely descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it forthwith conveys an
immediate idea of any ingredient, quality, characteristic,
feature, function, purpose or use of the goods or services. See,
e.g., In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
and In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). It is not necessary that a term describe all
of the properties or functions of the goods or services in order
for it to be considered to be merely descriptive thereof; rather,
it is sufficient if the term describes a significant attribute or
idea about them. Moreover, whether a term is merely descriptive
is determined not in the abstract but in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the context in which
it is being used on or in connection with those goods or services
and the possible significance that the term would have to the
average purchaser of the goods or services because of the manner
of its use. See In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593
(TTAB 1979). Thus, "[w]hether consumers could guess what the
product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is
not the test." In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366
(TTAB 1985).
In the present case, it is our view that, when applied
to anti-theft alarms for vehicles, the term "DRIVER-ID" would be
regarded by purchasers and potential customers for such goods as
immediately describing, without any conjecture or speculation, a
significant feature or purpose of applicant’s goods, namely,
Ser. No. 75/031,114
6
their driver identification or authorization function.
Specifically, as persuasively pointed out in her final refusal,
the Examining Attorney accurately notes that, as shown by the
record:
Applicant’s goods screen potential
drivers and exclude those which are
identified as not authorized to drive the
motor vehicle. This is done by determining
the identity of the person attempting to
start the ignition and, after scanning his or
her driver’s license, allowing the identified
person to start the car or by disabling
operation of the vehicle. Applicant’s goods
are able to identify potential drivers--those
authorized and those not authorized to
operate the vehicle.
As such, the term "DRIVER-ID" merely describes a primary feature
or purpose of applicant’s anti-theft alarms for vehicles, which
is to allow only certain drivers, as identified by their drivers’
licenses’ magnetic strips, ankle-band transmitters or other means
of personal identification, to operate the vehicles so protected.
There simply is nothing in the term "DRIVER-ID" which, when used
in connection with applicant’s goods, requires the exercise of
imagination, cogitation or mental processing or necessitates the
gathering of further information in order for the merely
descriptive significance thereof to be immediately perceived.
Clearly, to customers and users of applicant’s goods, such term
readily conveys that a principal feature or purpose of
applicant’s vehicle anti-theft alarms is that driver
identification is required before the vehicle may be legitimately
operated, thereby preventing unauthorized drivers from starting
the vehicle.
Ser. No. 75/031,114
7
Furthermore, as is plain from the dictionary
definitions thereof, combining the terms "DRIVER" and "ID" into
the term "DRIVER-ID" results in a term which has the same meaning
which ordinary usage would ascribe to the individual terms in
combination. See, e.g., In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017,
5 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nothing in such combined
term is bizarre, incongruous, indefinite or ambiguous when
considered in the context of applicant’s goods.
Accordingly, because the term "DRIVER-ID" forthwith
conveys that a significant feature or purpose of applicant’s
anti-theft alarms for vehicles is the driver identification
capability or function which permits only authorized users to
operate the vehicles so protected, such term is merely
descriptive within the meaning of the statute.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is
affirmed.
R. F. Cissel
E. W. Hanak
G. D. Hohein
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board